Unscrupulous?! Scandalous?! Status Quo?!

[VapidLapid]

I would like to close this thread.
I would like to turn it toward a more productive outcome than where it is headed.
This could be an opportunity for nsc to find out what their pool of potential clients likes and doesn''t like, and what we would like to see them develop. After all they must have some values common to ours. They like pretty colored stones, and they, by their being and their name alone make the mass public aware of the vast treatments most gemstones are subjected to these days. They should use us as allies and value us as such. They could reshoot the face ups of all their pairs and update the website. In general their photography IS very good. They have clear sharp photos with deep focus and a lot of information in them. The 3-d thing is good too. I would like to be able to filter search results not by price ascending/descending but by price per carat asc/des. They should give GIA certs for every stone over $1500. They should cut better. They should not put lipstick on a pig and call it padparadscha. They should give 20% discounts to pricescope members!
They could become a better company that advances the appreciation of sapphires and earns and keeps it''s clients trust. They just needed to hear from us about what we don''t like but also what we do like. I would like more step cuts.

 

[FrekeChild]

But you know VL, if the responses from Michael to RockHugger and his treatment of IndyLady are any indication, NSC has absolutely no respect for the people of Pricescope. If anything, they seem to have disdain. They have dismissed two members that shared their experiences (who knows, maybe others called/emailed too) as naysayers, and it kind of seems to me that they would rather we just go away than exist altogether.

Ultimately that is their prerogative, and it's their business. But I think from the firestorm that transpired yesterday, that they don't care what we think, because we don't matter to them. Michael seems to think that PS is small beans, just look at his email to Helen,

Helen can you piece together my correspondence with Kathy here and post it on pricescope.

I fear what precedence this sets, as anyone in the general public will now demand we respond to them on pricescope as it is becoming some informal trial/judge/jury.

In this case I feel very confident in our position and I am glad to make it public, yet I fear about how much time this will take of our working resources.

Please do this during your regular working hours here, but I am asking you not to spend anytime checking the site for more issues after this.

Thank you,
Michael Arnstein

You know what that says to me? It says, "I don't care about Pricescope and it's members opinions of our company, I'm going to do what I want to do, and any time I use (or anyone else here at The Natural Sapphire Company) on Pricescope is a waste of our time."

Thanks for belittling this website's existence Mr. Arnstein. And it's thousands of members, and thousands of lurkers.

In other words, they don't care what we think.

 

[LostSapphire]

Date: 3/4/2010 7:00:22 AM
Author: ma re



Good thing NSC isn't a child adoption service. By their logic, in case of identical twins, it would be enough for you to see only the photo of one of them, cause they're basically the same.

LS

 

[brandy_z28]

Date: 3/4/2010 1:19:09 PM
Author: LostSapphire

Date: 3/4/2010 7:00:22 AM
Author: ma re



Good thing NSC isn''t a child adoption service. By their logic, in case of identical twins, it would be enough for you to see only the photo of one of them, cause they''re basically the same.

LS

I think fraternal would be a better reference is some of the instances.

 

[Barrett]

Well said, freke!

 

[VapidLapid]

Date: 3/4/2010 1:52:51 PM
Author: amethystguy
Well said, freke!

I agree 100% freke. Contemptuous and insulting. Michael''s great skill is making bad situations worse. I was just thinking what good could come from this and how to reach that end.

 

[E B]

Date: 3/4/2010 12:49:30 PM
Author: FrekeChild

You know what that says to me? It says, 'I don't care about Pricescope and it's members opinions of our company, I'm going to do what I want to do, and any time I use (or anyone else here at The Natural Sapphire Company) on Pricescope is a waste of our time.'

Exactly. I wonder if they're aware of the fact that when you Google "The Natural Sapphire Company," the third link is to Pricescope (the first two being links to their own website). And currently, at the very top on the second page of "more results" is a link to this thread.

ETA: The third link on the FIRST page of "more results?" Fox's thread.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Well said, Freke. Totally agree with your assessment of what has transpired throughout this thread.

PS is a fantastic resource, and good or bad, all of this information will be cached somewhere forever. If you don't want what you've said to follow you forever, do NOT put it into writing online.

I'm also incredibly disappointed to hear how NSC has treated a few of our members. I know that many have had nothing but good things to say, but it seems to be fewer and farther between these days.

 

[StonieGrl]

PT Barnum said it best: There''s a sucker born every minute.

Obviously NSC operates on this business philosophy from the top down. Many retailers have zero respect for their clients, my job as a consumer is to ID those before I invest my money in them.

Anyone who buys from this place after reading this thread is doing so on a caveat emptor basis.

One of the many, many benefits of PS.

 

[Michael_E]

VapidLapid
.
.
This could be an opportunity for nsc to find out what their pool of potential clients likes and doesn''t like, and what we would like to see them develop. After all they must have some values common to ours. They like pretty colored stones, and they, by their being and their name alone make the mass public aware of the vast treatments most gemstones are subjected to these days. They should use us as allies and value us as such.

A little historical background and a different perspective on the way that this thread has gone. NSC started business as an offshoot of Michael''s families colored stone business, in an effort to promote untreated sapphires. This was many years ago and I remember seeing his entertaining ads in the trade publications. He is a large part of the reason that there is any concern with treatments in sapphires since he built his market niche around that theme. Using the members of this forum as allies ? Good idea, tough to do, (that''s something for a different thread though, since this thread is about a few pictures that people have taken issue with).

They could reshoot the face ups of all their pairs and update the website. In general their photography IS very good. They have clear sharp photos with deep focus and a lot of information in them. The 3-d thing is good too.

Re-shooting a few pictures may be good idea, but I''m not convinced that more than about 1/2 of the 14 pictures of pairs from their site shown here, show the same stone. Many more on their site are obviously different stones. Cameras can make what looks like a matched pair to the eye, at normal viewing scales, into an unmatched pair as an image. It should not be surprising that manipulations are done to the images to make them closer to what a client will actually see when they have it in their hand. I HAVE to manipulate every gem image that I take, just to make sure that it matches what the stone REALLY looks like. As for mirroring images, well if the final result looks like reality at the correct size scale, then why not ? That''s the objective isn''t it, to convey what the stones will look like when you are holding them ? You need to remember that the images are shown magnified more than they would be under a microscope and so there is this tendency to over analyse those images. If NSC asked me, (which they won''t), I would suggest that they stop showing magnified images of pairs. Why bother, since the stones never actually look like that unless you''re looking at them under a microscope.

would like to be able to filter search results not by price ascending/descending but by price per carat asc/des. They should give GIA certs for every stone over $1500. They should cut better. They should not put lipstick on a pig and call it padparadscha. They should give 20% discounts to pricescope members!They could become a better company that advances the appreciation of sapphires and earns and keeps it''s clients trust. They just needed to hear from us about what we don''t like but also what we do like. I would like more step cuts.

All of this is fine, but it has to match their business model or it''s a no-go. Write them a note and make your suggestions, maybe they''ll use them. As for the lipstick on the pig analogy, why not ? Maybe put some wings on that devil and teach it to talk as well ? Marketing, it''s the American way ! You need to remember that just because you think a stone''s a pig doesn''t make it so in the eyes of everyone else. Likewise calling something a padparadshca may or may not make it so...depending on who''s doing the buying. Who cares what it''s called anyway, it''s how it looks that counts.

Now when we get down to treating people poorly, that''s definitely a bad way to act. On the other hand I would try to put yourself in the other persons'' shoes for a minute. What would you do if all of a sudden you started getting e-mails and phone calls questioning something which had never been a big deal to you ? If it were me I would start laughing and tell you to let me talk to everyone at my place and get back to you in a couple of days. If I had ten times more stuff going on around me and a lot more e-mails and phone calls, I''m not sure what I''d do. What would you do ? There''re two sides to this and my comments are not so much to defend the NSC as to show that there are often reason''s for things being done the way that they are which do not involve any sort of planned misrepresentation as some have suggested...often the opposite effect is what was intended.

 

[Arkteia]

OK, here is my feeling:
I am a 100% buyer. Do not sell stones/jewelry, do not trade on ebay or elsewhere. In September I was browsing ebay, came across NSC, put them on my preferred seller''s list, then removed for some reason. Then I came across PS, looked at their list of preferred vendors, put NSC on my seller''s list again. Haven''t bought anything from them yet, but was constantly checking. Not taking PS-ers opinion into account to me feels like cutting your own hand, i.e. severing relationships with a forum that is supporting you. So I totally agree with Freke. My personal response? I am going to remove them from my own sellers'' list again.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/4/2010 4:43:04 PM
Author: Michael_E
Now when we get down to treating people poorly, that's definitely a bad way to act. On the other hand I would try to put yourself in the other persons' shoes for a minute. What would you do if all of a sudden you started getting e-mails and phone calls questioning something which had never been a big deal to you ? If it were me I would start laughing and tell you to let me talk to everyone at my place and get back to you in a couple of days. If I had ten times more stuff going on around me and a lot more e-mails and phone calls, I'm not sure what I'd do. What would you do ? There're two sides to this and my comments are not so much to defend the NSC as to show that there are often reason's for things being done the way that they are which do not involve any sort of planned misrepresentation as some have suggested...often the opposite effect is what was intended.

What would I do? Well, as some people know, I have been selling gems (on a very very small scale) that I can't afford to set, or have been my "learning" stones, and my biggest prerogative is that the pictures look as close to the gem as possible. If it doesn't due to camera issues or lighting issues, I give a description of what I see with my eyes. Should someone ask me for more pictures in different lighting, I do my best to give them to them.

But I'm also first and foremost a customer service person. I like people, and I really like it when people are happy. I don't want someone going away with bad things to say about me, my (hypothetical!) company, or my ethics. What's the point?

If I were the CEO/president of a company (lets name it The Natural Spinel Company just for sh!tz and giggles) and I had a similar sized inventory of NSC's, some of my pairs were mirror images/photoshopped in some way, and I got emails about it from a handful of people from a really big (are we the biggest? I dunno!) gemstone/jewelry website/forum about how our images are obviously digitally manipulated, you can bet your @$$ I would stand up and say, "You know what, you're right. If you, my customer base--no matter how small a part of it you are, has a problem with it, then so do I." And I would personally go to the website, and do my best to make amends, AND I would have my people photographing every stone individually, and updating those ASAP.

But the thing is, even if I was the hypothetical prez of the situation above, I would never ever digitally alter my goods in this manner. To me, that's like false advertisement. (Color correction is a whole other bag of potato chips my friends, for instance, I think Mr. Gene Flanigan does an exceptional job of altering the color of his photos to match the stones IN REAL LIFE.)

This whole fiasco shows me that Micheal only cares about the bottom line. It is only when a policy/comment/email/posting/incident affects his bottom line, that he will stand up and pay attention. Right now, he doesn't see this thread having anything to do with his precious bottom line.

Speaking from my less than professional experience, I think it's way easier to take a few extra pictures of something than it is to digitally alter a photograph. Well, except those mirrored images.


FYI, the above post is my humble opinion, and only my opinion. It does not reflect the opinion of this website or any other members but myself. The one exception in this situation is if they say they agree with what I have said.
This part of my post is a comment directed at no one in particular, just a general disclaimer. Have a nice day!

 

[E B]

Date: 3/4/2010 6:03:06 PM
Author: FrekeChild

This whole fiasco shows me that Micheal only cares about the bottom line. It is only when a policy/comment/email/posting/incident affects his bottom line, that he will stand up and pay attention. Right now, he doesn't see this thread having anything to do with his precious bottom line.

He should probably start paying attention now. This thread has reached the first page of "more results" on Google and could continue to climb.

 

[reggie]

Date: 3/4/2010 7:55:08 AM
Author: Chrono

Date: 3/4/2010 7:00:22 AM
Author: ma re
To answer the question of 'why would they bother altering photos to make them look like two different stones?' - well, that tells you there's a good chance these stones look like even less of a matched pair without the photo alteration. My only question to them at this point would be: would it be so time-consuming to type a simple, one sentence, note about the possible photo alteration on some photos of pairs (for reasons specified/justified by them) and placing it where ever necessary? I can type it, click 'copy' and then click 'paste' a hundred times, and all together it wouldn't take me more than two minutes to do it. But then, that would probably confuse and chase away some customers, so it's better to just do what ever you like and hope no one will ever notice. So basically, they don't have the time to individually photograph thousand of dollars (each worth of gemstones (which I don't even know why would it be necessary since we're talking about pairs), but somehow they do manage to find the time to photoshop, change tones of colors, mirror/rotate/whatnot the images...

I'm not that dumb, and I'm pretty sure our members here aren't either.

Good thing NSC isn't a child adoption service. By their logic, in case of identical twins, it would be enough for you to see only the photo of one of them, cause they're basically the same.

P. S. I know it would be against the rules (hope we can make some exceptions here), but it would be interesting to see a pair of perfectly matched, most precisely cut pair of colorless diamonds available on the market. I'm pretty sure you could even spot differences in such a case.

The thing that I do not understand is that NSC apparently has time to take the side view and pavilion view of the real pair of sapphires but does not have time to take the face up picture?

ma re / Chrono – This is what bothers me the most and I’m glad I’m not the only one who has noticed. No one can dispute that NSC take pictures with both sapphires from two different angles (side and pavilion view). But then they decide to remove one of the sapphires and take a pic of just one of them face up to save time?

I think it’s safe to assume that they did indeed take a picture with both of the sapphires face up. But why would they then alter the pic after the fact? The only logical conclusion is that NSC felt the style of cut and/or facet structures between the two gems were too dissimilar when magnified. Other people have pointed out that when you see the two gems IRL they probably do look very similar. Maybe NSC is afraid that potential customers will not realize this fact and end up passing on this particular pair.

In my humble opinion what they are doing is a bait and switch. The customer is buying a pair of sapphires thinking the facet structures are virtually the same between the two when indeed they aren’t. I think it's fair to say that consumers would be willing to pay a premium price for an identical pair of sapphires. I think they are trying to charge a premium price on something that doesn’t even exist.

 

[E B]

Date: 3/4/2010 4:43:04 PM
Author: Michael_E

As for mirroring images, well if the final result looks like reality at the correct size scale, then why not? That's the objective isn't it, to convey what the stones will look like when you are holding them?

Not only did NSC mirror the images, they altered some of them to look like different stones. What reason would they have to do this, if not to fool the buyer into believing that the magnified image is of two real stones?

Date: 3/4/2010 4:43:04 PM
Author: Michael_E

If NSC asked me, (which they won't), I would suggest that they stop showing magnified images of pairs. Why bother, since the stones never actually look like that unless you're looking at them under a microscope.

I agree, if the only alternative is to 'shop the sapphires to look the same. But I appreciate magnified images. It shows the buyer each stone's "personality," a view we might not see otherwise.

Someone on an earlier page mentioned that he likes subtle differences in a pair of stones. He said that if he wanted an identical pair, he would have purchased sims. It's clear that some of the "real" pairs listed at The Natural Sapphire Company aren't cut identically, but you can tell they'd be a good match when viewed at real size.

 

[E B]

Date: 3/4/2010 6:50:22 PM
Author: reggie

I think it’s safe to assume that they did indeed take a picture with both of the sapphires face up. But why would they then alter the pic after the fact? The only logical conclusion is that NSC felt the style of cut and/or facet structures between the two gems were too dissimilar when magnified. Other people have pointed out that when you see the two gems IRL they probably do look very similar. Maybe NSC is afraid that potential customers will not realize this fact and end up passing on this particular pair.

In my humble opinion what they are doing is a bait and switch. The customer is buying a pair of sapphires thinking the facet structures are virtually the same between the two when indeed they aren’t. I think it''s fair to say that consumers would be willing to pay a premium price for an identical pair of sapphires. I think they are trying to charge a premium price on something that doesn’t even exist.

I didn''t see this before submitting, but I completely agree.

 

[Indylady]

Now when we get down to treating people poorly, that''s definitely a bad way to act. On the other hand I would try to put yourself in the other persons'' shoes for a minute. What would you do if all of a sudden you started getting e-mails and phone calls questioning something which had never been a big deal to you ? If it were me I would start laughing and tell you to let me talk to everyone at my place and get back to you in a couple of days. If I had ten times more stuff going on around me and a lot more e-mails and phone calls, I''m not sure what I''d do. What would you do ?

What would I do?

I would not be angry with a client, or expose my anger to them.

If I could not control my emotions, then I would not answer the phone, and would only answer messages once I
could control my emotions.

 

[Harriet]

Pairs, members individually photographed and filmed:

http://www.paraibainternational.com/products.php?category=&page=all&sort=&products_quantity_type=2

 

[Gailey]

Link fixed:

Paraiba International - Pairs

 

[packrat]

Interesting thread. I''m a secretary. Nothin fancy. Been doing it for 10 years. Never in 10 years have I *ever* spoken to anyone on the phone (or in person) like that when a customer or patient called in and said "Hey, I''ve got a question". If someone calls in and starts screaming and swearing and calling names (which I''ve dealt w/on more than one occasion) I''m not going to kiss their butt-but the poster that called the company didn''t freak out, so I don''t see why she should be treated so shabbily. People talk. Word of mouth is a HUGE way of making yourself heard, and drumming up business. Some places I''ve been to have a sign that says "If you''re unhappy, please tell us first" or something like that, meaning, if you''re ticked for some reason, don''t run out and shout it from the mountains, come to us first and let''s set it right. If you do happen to go to the company b/c you''re unhappy and they pretty much tell you to stick your duck in your left shoe and smoke it..yeah, someone''s going to be yelling something from the rooftops, and it''s not going to be nice.

 

[Arcadian]

Date: 3/4/2010 7:23:42 PM
Author: IndyLady

Now when we get down to treating people poorly, that''s definitely a bad way to act. On the other hand I would try to put yourself in the other persons'' shoes for a minute. What would you do if all of a sudden you started getting e-mails and phone calls questioning something which had never been a big deal to you ? If it were me I would start laughing and tell you to let me talk to everyone at my place and get back to you in a couple of days. If I had ten times more stuff going on around me and a lot more e-mails and phone calls, I''m not sure what I''d do. What would you do ?

What would I do?

I would not be angry with a client, or expose my anger to them.

If I could not control my emotions, then I would not answer the phone, and would only answer messages once I
could control my emotions.

I agree with this, and do this often!! I have some very picky and finicky clients. whoo man they can make the blood just BOIL when they pull some craziness...but you know what? thats also my bread and butter. its what allowed me to pay off my house before I hit 40.

Irregardless of how much they may work that last nerve, I keep that in the back of my head and just let v-mail do the talking until I''m in a better mood. Bad news can travel very fast in my business, and I make sure that every client of mine has a good experience with me. Some are more begrudging than others, but for the most part I''ve never had a client go away mad.


If your livelyhood relies not only on your goods but also your customer service...you got to pour the honey on instead of spray with vinegar.


-A

 

[Barrett]

Well said once again freke..you are on a roll..well done! and packrat has it spot on..word of mouth can make and/or break many companies..word of mouth can mean big business over time

 

[Gailey]

Date: 3/4/2010 4:43:04 PM
Author: Michael_E

VapidLapid
.
.
This could be an opportunity for nsc to find out what their pool of potential clients likes and doesn't like, and what we would like to see them develop. After all they must have some values common to ours. They like pretty colored stones, and they, by their being and their name alone make the mass public aware of the vast treatments most gemstones are subjected to these days. They should use us as allies and value us as such.

A little historical background and a different perspective on the way that this thread has gone. NSC started business as an offshoot of Michael's families colored stone business, in an effort to promote untreated sapphires. This was many years ago and I remember seeing his entertaining ads in the trade publications. He is a large part of the reason that there is any concern with treatments in sapphires since he built his market niche around that theme. Using the members of this forum as allies ? Good idea, tough to do, (that's something for a different thread though, since this thread is about a few pictures that people have taken issue with).



Now when we get down to treating people poorly, that's definitely a bad way to act. On the other hand I would try to put yourself in the other persons' shoes for a minute. What would you do if all of a sudden you started getting e-mails and phone calls questioning something which had never been a big deal to you ? If it were me I would start laughing and tell you to let me talk to everyone at my place and get back to you in a couple of days. If I had ten times more stuff going on around me and a lot more e-mails and phone calls, I'm not sure what I'd do. What would you do ? There're two sides to this and my comments are not so much to defend the NSC as to show that there are often reason's for things being done the way that they are which do not involve any sort of planned misrepresentation as some have suggested...often the opposite effect is what was intended.

(Respectfully snipped)

Michael

I thought you made some very good points. Clearly Mr Arnstein was rattled by the time Indy lady called him. Couple that with the way this thread must have blindsided him when it appeared. He's no stranger to doing business with the general public and all it's foibles so I can only imagine what he had read had stressed him to breaking point. And perhaps the reason he was so stressed had something to do with your first paragraph. Whatever his intentions had been in having his images photoshopped (and I think NSC and most of us will have to agree to differ as to the extent), the minute he digitally altered those photos in even the most miniscule of ways, he put in jeopardy all those years of work his he and his family had dedicated to promoting untreated sapphires. A non-disclosed, treated photo of an untreated sapphire flies in the face of everything his company stands for no matter how honourable his intentions.

Once again, his responses and that of his staff here on Pricescope just compounded the issue a 1000th fold. As someone else pointed out earlier, if he had simply said, "You got me, I'm banged to rights, but I only did it because of XYZ", if his intentions had been honourable people would have given him a pass on the whole thing.

 

[ma re]

These days in the gemstone and jewellery business trust is of paramount importance, that''s why all the fuss has been made here on this topic. Trust has been brought into question.

 

[Michael_E]

Author: Gailey
.
.
.
Whatever his intentions had been in having his images photoshopped (and I think NSC and most of us will have to agree to differ as to the extent), the minute he digitally altered those photos in even the most miniscule of ways, he put in jeopardy all those years of work his he and his family had dedicated to promoting untreated sapphires. A non-disclosed, treated photo of an untreated sapphire flies in the face of everything his company stands for no matter how honourable his intentions.

Gailey and Ma Re,

Trust has always been at the core of the jewelry business, but the reaction to a few tweaked photographs has been out of proportion in my opinion. There are two things happening here. The most prominent is that a few people attempted to communicate with Mr. Arnstein and were rebuffed rather harshly. Bad juju on that one and I can''t make any further comment on that other than that it is separate from the initial issue of a few pictures out of hundreds that are obviously faked for one stone of a pair.

The original issue involves the second thing that is occurring here, which is the prevalent attitude that Gailey has mentioned and which I feel is a little too strongly held by many. I would have to say that it''s all a matter of degree. The reason is because every image that you''ll ever see is tweaked in some way. Just the act of taking a picture is going to favor one lighting situation, direction, background and a whole host of other things which affect that image and make it different from the reality of the stone shown. Many of the people commenting have actually become "picture connoisseurs" and seem to believe that they can discern things from a picture that may or may not actually be true. It gets really funny sometimes, reading comments about pictures when the opposite comments would have been obtained had the same stones image been taken under different conditions or with a different direction of modification.

Anyway, back to the idea that faking the picture of one stone of a pair implicating someone in an evil plot in partnership with the devil

(or just being no longer worthy of trust)...I really doubt this. I imagine that what probably happened was that whoever took the pictures couldn''t get them to match as closely as they did IRL and so they just faked it, not thinking that anyone would inspect those images at the 40X magnification that was offered. I doubt if Mr. Arnstein took the pictures or even inspected them...he probably had no idea that some were faked. He was most likely told that all of the pictures were right on the mark and took that to be the case, (which it probably is for the majority of their pictures). They are not selling pictures. The object of the pictures is to accurately represent the thing being sold as you would see it at a normal viewing scale. If the magnified images had not been available, then this discussion would not be taking place right now, since I''ve not read one comment on here from someone who was dissatisfied with the actual products from them. If you buy something based on what a picture shows, it doesn''t look like the picture after you get it AND you have no recourse in returning it for a refund, then there is a problem. This hasn''t happened and so the "problem" is small to nonexistent except to those people who are more focused on those pictures than the actual stones, (understandable, since the only thing we get to see looking at the computer is the pictures). I find this whole deal pretty humorous, except that some people are pretty upset by it. Being upset is a not a very nice way to spend your time and for you folks that are, I sure hope that you can gain a slightly different perspective and have a much better day today !

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/5/2010 12:52:40 PM
Author: Michael_E


Gailey and Ma Re,

Trust has always been at the core of the jewelry business, but the reaction to a few tweaked photographs has been out of proportion in my opinion. There are two things happening here. The most prominent is that a few people attempted to communicate with Mr. Arnstein and were rebuffed rather harshly. Bad juju on that one and I can't make any further comment on that other than that it is separate from the initial issue of a few pictures out of hundreds that are obviously faked for one stone of a pair.

The original issue involves the second thing that is occurring here, which is the prevalent attitude that Gailey has mentioned and which I feel is a little too strongly held by many. I would have to say that it's all a matter of degree. The reason is because every image that you'll ever see is tweaked in some way. Just the act of taking a picture is going to favor one lighting situation, direction, background and a whole host of other things which affect that image and make it different from the reality of the stone shown. Many of the people commenting have actually become 'picture connoisseurs' and seem to believe that they can discern things from a picture that may or may not actually be true. It gets really funny sometimes, reading comments about pictures when the opposite comments would have been obtained had the same stones image been taken under different conditions or with a different direction of modification.

Anyway, back to the idea that faking the picture of one stone of a pair implicating someone in an evil plot in partnership with the devil

(or just being no longer worthy of trust)...I really doubt this. I imagine that what probably happened was that whoever took the pictures couldn't get them to match as closely as they did IRL and so they just faked it, not thinking that anyone would inspect those images at the 40X magnification that was offered. I doubt if Mr. Arnstein took the pictures or even inspected them...he probably had no idea that some were faked. He was most likely told that all of the pictures were right on the mark and took that to be the case, (which it probably is for the majority of their pictures). They are not selling pictures. The object of the pictures is to accurately represent the thing being sold as you would see it at a normal viewing scale. If the magnified images had not been available, then this discussion would not be taking place right now, since I've not read one comment on here from someone who was dissatisfied with the actual products from them. If you buy something based on what a picture shows, it doesn't look like the picture after you get it AND you have no recourse in returning it for a refund, then there is a problem. This hasn't happened and so the 'problem' is small to nonexistent except to those people who are more focused on those pictures than the actual stones, (understandable, since the only thing we get to see looking at the computer is the pictures). I find this whole deal pretty humorous, except that some people are pretty upset by it. Being upset is a not a very nice way to spend your time and for you folks that are, I sure hope that you can gain a slightly different perspective and have a much better day today !

Michael, first of all, I don't think people here are *upset* (except for maybe the ones that were spoken harshly to directly by NSC, and they certainly are entitled to feel that way). What I personally feel is that this is sort of RIDICULOUS.

If you want to show me what two stones look like on a normal viewing scale, then don't show me big giant magnified images. Take the pics of the two stones and show them as dots.

But if you are going to try and sell me stones based on magnified images, then take the actual bloody images of the two damn stones and let me make the call. They're saying they just used mirror images because IRL the stones look identical. Well, some people see more green in a stone than blue. Others will look at the same stone and see it much differently. Why should I have to take their word for it? If they are going to go out of their way to post magnified images, how about letting me make the call since it's my cash?

I have always agreed that judging a colored stone by pictures only is not the way to go. But if you are going to use the internet as a vehicle for your business (and a key one at that), then you should bloody well make sure your pics are as accurate as possible (which is why I don't have an issue with someone photoshopping the stone to show how the stone looks IRL). No matter how you dice and slice it, a mirror image of a stone to represent another stone is not accurate.

 

[FrekeChild]

Ditto ditto ditto TGal.

 

[Indylady]

Date: 3/5/2010 10:02:05 AM
Author: Gailey
A non-disclosed, treated photo of an untreated sapphire flies in the face of everything his company stands for no matter how honourable his intentions.

+1

 

[vinkalmann]

@ Michael

I agree with a lot that you''re saying. I''ve often thought that NSC may be a victim of their own attempts at giving information. I think on some levels they may being giving TOO much information about the stones. Take their 3D modeling of the stones for example. The first thing that people say (myself included), is "OMG look how bad the cutting is!". I know I said the same thing on when I saw the model of fiance''s stone. I''m here thinking, "Look at that, all the angles don''t line up perfectly, what''s going on." While I could see that in a wire frame model on the computer screen, in real life I couldn''t see the issues at all without magnifying it.

It comes up all the time on the forum that they have bad cuts on their stones. Is this really the case, or do many vendors have bad cuts but they just aren''t providing the graphics for their potential customers to see the issues. I''m not including precision cutters in this statement as I consider their stones to be a different level than the average person is going to be purchasing.

It''s clear from what the owner said that they are providing a lot of services to their clients that are labor/time intensive and I believe this. It''s clear that they made a cost cutting measure when it came to photographing duplicate stones. Was this the best choice? Probably not when it comes to consumers like those on this board, but the reality is the people on this board are pseudo experts when it comes to gem stone shopping. The average person isn''t going to know or even know that they are supposed know.

 

[Indylady]

Date: 3/5/2010 12:52:40 PM
Author: Michael_E

Anyway, back to the idea that faking the picture of one stone of a pair implicating someone in an evil plot in partnership with the devil

(or just being no longer worthy of trust)...I really doubt this. I imagine that what probably happened was that whoever took the pictures couldn't get them to match as closely as they did IRL and so they just faked it, not thinking that anyone would inspect those imagesat the 40X magnification that was offered.

Just faking it, and thinking no one will inspect it later is not a reasonable excuse.

I doubt if Mr. Arnstein took the pictures or even inspected them...he probably had no idea that some were faked.

He clearly stated that he is well aware of and fully supports the practice of "faked" or duplicated photographs, which is also undisclosed. As president of his company, he's responsible for knowing how his product is represented, especially with regards to photography and photoshopping in this field.

I find this whole deal pretty humorous

Perhaps its funny if you're the vendor. Its not so funny when you're the customer spending thousands of dollars for a gem which you've chosen based on a sliced and diced photograph.